Bob Woodward exposes Obama’s sequester ‘madness’

February 27, 2013

Discussing President Obama’s handling of the looming and dreaded ‘sequester’, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” today, long standing member of the “mainstream press” Bob Woodward lamented that Obama’s behavior illustrated “a kind of madness that I haven’t seen in a long time.”

Woodward illustrates with clarity and common sense how Obama’s behavior is far outside the norm of Presidential expectations:

….But I think it’s possible to take one example here, where President Obama came out and acknowledged that we are not sending a, the aircraft carrier Truman to the Persian Gulf because of this budget agreement, now, now uh Joe, this will resonate with you I think, can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying “oh by the way I can’t do this because of some budget document or George W Bush saying you know I’m not going to invade Iraq because I can’t get the aircraft carriers I need or even Bill Clinton saying you know I’m not gonna attack Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters as he did when Clinton was President because of some budget document?  Under the Constitution the President is Commander in Chief and employs the force and so we now have the President going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement uh “I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country?”,  that’s a kind of madness that I haven’t seen in a long time…..

Welcome back to reality Mr. Woodward.  I and others have been trying to tell you and your colleagues for years now that Obama’s penchant for demagoguery aside, he is just not qualified for the job.

Or to put it another way, Obama is just too small minded for such a large office.

The office of the Presidency of the United States of America, if its duties are to be carried out effectively and Constitutionally, requires that whoever sits in the chair have more than just election results in his corner.

He must be able to do more than give a good speech.  He must be able to do more than fan the flames of fear.  He must be able to put aside the adulation and the cheers of the campaign.

When the time comes, he must be adult enough to put away the toys, leave the playroom and cross the hall to the den.  That boring old den where Presidents do what they are supposed to do:  govern.

It’s not sexy, it’s not glitzy, it’s not a constant stroking of the ego, but it IS the most important part of the job.

When a President ignores the “adult” part of his employment contract he does more than just put his “legacy” at risk, he throws the entire nation into unnecessary turmoil and division and causes real and actual harm to tens of millions.

And at this time of historically high gas prices, shrinking package sizes on the supermarket shelves, real unemployment in double digits, and family incomes stagnant or falling, Obama is contributing far more than his“fair share” to the economic misery index.

But what’s most disgusting of this latest Obama/Alinsky road tour is that the President isn’t even being truthful about the, who, what, why and when of how the sequester came about in the first place.

In the same segment, Woodward noted that the overriding goal of the 2011 negotiations was to make sure that Obama would not have to go through another debt ceiling increase battle prior to the 2012 election.

…He was absolutely desperate to get something, so He got his benefit and now he wants to come back and say “wait a minute uh let’s put some taxes in here which he’d agreed in the sequester not to do.  Now the White House has a point, that there was always discussion about some more tax increases but the President got a lot of tax increases a month ago and uh quite frankly I think it, a deal, can be made here, but these people have to sit down….

While Woodward’s “colleague” at the Post, Obama fan club chairman Ezra Klein disputes that Obama is now “moving the goal posts”, no sane or rational person can dispute that the actions of the President of the United States over these past ten days has been anything remotely resembling, “Presidential”behavior.

No one has yet been able to explain just why Obama refuses to quit playing with his campaign toys and actually start doing his job, but for lack of any more fitting word, I must agree with Woodward on this one.

It is, without a doubt:  “madness”.

Tags: , ,

7 Responses to Bob Woodward exposes Obama’s sequester ‘madness’

  1. anson on February 27, 2013 at 11:55 am

    My how people forget or even ignore bad news.
    Woodward “explained” the debt ceiling debates in 2011 in excruciating detail in his book The Price of Politics. Now again, he is taking FACTS from that book and reminding all, again, of what happened back then and the consequences now.
    He has already been demeaned by the left for the book when published and now they are heaping coals on the fire with his recent words on TV.
    Now go read line one above, again, but as welll, let the truth continue to be told no matter what any politician or pundit might have to say about it.
    Good work, again, Bob, has been my email to him. NOW if I could just get him to do the same thing with Benghazi, well, I lost that fight with him a couple of months ago, unfortunately. He does not LIE about it however. He simply remains silent on that issue of a dysfunctional NCA.

  2. A Nonny Moose on February 27, 2013 at 8:15 pm

    I’m sure you’ve seen it, but now according to Woodward we have a senior White House official telling him (Woodward) that he’ll “regret doing this”. In other words, they’re threatening a reporter for daring to step out of line and report something other than what the deem to be the proper spin. That would be hilarious if it weren’t so frightening.

    But hey, Woodward helped bring down one corrupt president. Perhaps he can succeed in going 2 for 2?

  3. Geoff Caldwell on February 28, 2013 at 6:49 am

    To both:
    While it is far too optimistic think that Woodward could make Obama the bookend to his Nixon, it IS a great thought on which to start the day.
    Already though, just as they’ve done all along, the minion media is already following in lockstep “explaining” for the public that it wasn’t a “threat” merely just pointing out to dear ol dottering Bob that he would “regret” being wrong.
    On any other planet, in any other time, that would be called out for they laughable hypocrisy that it is, but with this press corpse and the number of dwainbwains out there willing to lap up anything that comes from the bowels of Dear Leader’s White House? Not likely.
    It was great while it lasted and I wish Mr. Woodward well (as if he is ever in any “danger” from this bunch of White House pissies) but I’m afraid this story will go the way of the world ending tomorrow when the sequester kicks in.

  4. anson on February 28, 2013 at 9:47 am

    Actually, Woodward is in some “danger”. At some point I HOPE he releases the name of the staffer (maybe the COS?) in the White House as well. NEVER send an email in such matters should be a cardinal rule for any politiican but………

    Woodward makes his “bones” with access to almost unbelievable levels in government. He could be denied such access in the future, simple as that.

    People talk to Bob because they actually want the “truth to be known” at least the truth as they see it. “You’ll get fire if you ever talk to Woodward” is a threat that must be listened to if you work in government. But for high level officials such a threat to them will never be written down and they will simply “disapear” under a cloud of uncertainty, until they THEN “talk to Bob” and explain what happened.


    • Geoff Caldwell on February 28, 2013 at 10:51 am

      I don’t think Woodward ever again has to worry about “access”. If he could get “deep throat” to bring Nixon down he can sure as hell bring Obama down if the info is there and he has the desire to do it.

      • muck55 on February 28, 2013 at 12:38 pm
        • Geoff Caldwell on February 28, 2013 at 4:29 pm

          And yet the grandest “fail” of all is the White House still trying to debunk Woodward’s account of the process. So far, I see Woodward “regretting” nothing about his reporting or staking out the “wrong” side of the story.
          I never took one side or the other as to whether Woodward felt he was physically threatened. Hmmm come to think of it I don’t believe he did either.

          He just repeated what he had been told and went on to relay how such intimidation attempt at “regret” for not reporting the White House side as the “correct” side of the story would have a much different affect on a younger reporter than it would on one of his experience and stature.
          And all one has to do is look at Plouffe and the rest of the White House goon squad to see that they reacted just as many predicted they would. A firestorm of criticism that had it been a less experience and reputable reporter would have been crushed under the weight of all the wagons circled to protect Dear Leader.


April 2021
« Mar